Donald Trump Is Not Just A Clown, He’s A Liberal Anti-Gun Clown

The big joke Tuesday was that comb-over reality TV star Donald Trump announced that he’s running for president in 2016 as a Republican. As if it isn’t funny enough that he’s given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation, he also said he wants Oprah Winfrey as his VP. And just in case you aren’t convinced of his conservative credentials, it turns out he’s left quite a liberal footprint of anti-gun, pro-abortion, redistribution of wealth, Obam-esque socialism.

Back in 2000 The Don was flirting with running for president as a Reform Party candidate. To get people jazzed about voting for the world’s biggest jackass, he published a book called The America We Deserve, which laid out his positions on a variety of subjects.

Here’s what he wrote about gun control:

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

While not quite as bad as most liberals, I don’t consider anyone that wants to ban weapons based on cosmetic features a friend to the American gun owner. He says confiscating guns is dumb, but then he supports an assault weapons ban, which outlaws an entire class of weapons based on the fact that liberals think they look scary, and that is somehow smart?

Note how he frowns on the NRA for opposing “limited restrictions” of gun ownership. You either support the 2nd Amendment, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or you favor gun control. Trump obviously is in the latter category.

He also doesn’t seem to know very much about the issue if he thinks there needs to be a waiting period for firearms purchases to ensure they don’t fall into the wrong hands. The background check system is almost instantaneous. The waiting period is something the liberals cooked up because they think that anyone who buys a gun is doing so to murder someone and they need a couple of days to cool off. If Trump looks at gun owners as likely killers, he ain’t no friend to the 2nd Amendment.

Elsewhere in Trump’s manifesto he takes the very liberal position of murdering unborn babies:

There are some issues I don’t want to say much about. I support a woman’s right to choose, for example, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion if I were president, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no.

Socialized medicine:

We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.

And redistribution of wealth:

I would impose a one-time, 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $ 10 million.

Liberals are rejoicing that Donald Trump has announced he’s running for president as a Republican because they think it reflects badly on conservatives. The thing is, we don’t want him. He thinks like a liberal and gives money to liberals; they can have him. He’s as fake and full of sh*t as Hillary Clinton and has no place in the GOP. He’s a liberal clown that belongs under the democratic big top.

Damn shame he’s two faced, I like a couple of his ideas, a couple. Guess he would be better than Killary.

Lu.V

Anything would be better than killery. Even inanimate objects…

MR LEE

well, the lesser of the two evils has been running the country for sometime now

Lu.V

Obama.. Not quite one that I see as the lesser of 2 evils..

MR LEE

that’s your view of him, and mine too. but then, he was elected. somehow.

KrazyHorse

Ni66er stole votes, plus all them dead black ancestors, and I’m sure a couple wiggers like the idiot that just left the NAAPC.

Tim Z

A pet goat would be better as President than whoever’s running right now.

Greg Overturf

All muslims have pet goats !! Obama has a herd of them !!!

KrazyHorse

Walker and Cruz in 2016

TeuTonic KNiGHT

A.K.A. DiLLARY,…….or SCHRiLLARY….

After_The_Fall

I’m sure there are some progressive RINOs who are energetically cheering Trump as the cutting edge innovator of what they hope the GOP will one day become in the new Amerika.

Grayz

Ok. I stand b4 thee, after your research, changed in my opinion. Don seemed refreshing, after a few too many ‘refreshments’…

Michae

too bad Mr. Anderson didnt do his research properly..Oprah was a joke in an interview…some people believe everything they see in the media, even this clown of a writer.

Bone_All_Liberals

Love the spin. However I don’t see that he is that far off from mainstream Americans. A statement he made about guns 15 years ago should be looked at more closely. In light of the recent marginalization of our police forces, I can see where most people might change there views on such things. If Obama can’t grab the guns I doubt anyone could. It’s a non issue. The real issue is jobs. Like trump said “the best social program is a job. J-O-B. Job. Nuff Said!

MR LEE

jobs is one issue. uh, yeah. one issue

Bone_All_Liberals

Ok well name several issues that you think are just as important and I will tell you how a job will fix it. Please?

KrazyHorse

Huh, put the bitches to work and they have less time to bitch, I like it.

my opinion

His opinions my have changed in the last 15 years. If Columbine isn’t old news i don’t know what is…
Not saying i would vote for the guy I’m just saying i won’t judge him on a book he wrote 15 years ago. I know some of my opinions have changed over the last 5 year’s let alone 15.

jdx

I used to like this site. Now I’m just getting fed up and annoyed with all the hate-spin hyperbole, the likes of which this article is full of.

ChasMoDee

Not everyone is perfect and no candidate will have all the correct answers…but, if The Donald is a clown then Brian Anderson must be an Ass Hat. Let’s compare the two. Anderson works for someone…many someones work for The Donald. Is it Anderson or The Donald that is the Billionaire? When Anderson writes, a few people read it…but when The Donald talks, everyone listens and writes about it. So, Ass Hat…who’s the clown?

Michae

and he believes the joke about oprah….lol…im done reading this clowns opinion.

ChasMoDee

I’m with you!

Diana Kerr

I don’t know… anyone who calls themselves (or has other people call them) “The Don or The Donald”… something MIGHT be wrong there…. Just sounds like someone who puts themselves above everyone else to me… and that’s not what an American president (or any leader) should be.

Laurie

It is waaaay too early for me to make any decision about any of the candidates. There is lots of time. Why the rush? Does anybody want to wait for the actual debates anymore? I do.

MR LEE

maybe you have lots of time, maybe you don’t. God knows. but Im glad we don’t have to vote today

Laurie

My point is I want to see the candidates debate, then hella research on their claims. Like I did when Hussein ran. And I didn’t vote for him…twice.

bullet2354

Never mind the fact that 9 of every 10 of those ‘with criminal records’ would simply not walk into a store to buy a gun and have that criminal record exposed. So again – only Law abiding gun owners are limited.

THE solution is not ‘gun control,’ the solution is ‘CRIME CONTROL!’

Cpl Ken

There was an interesting study from Harvard; they concluded that the single most common and critical factor for a person to be involved in a fatal firearm incident, as shooter or victim, is a personal background that includes multiple felony convictions of either of the two involved in the incident.

(This goes against the liberal mantra of “remove all guns and reduce crime”, but that is as simplistic as saying that if their were no swimming pools there would be no drownings or that if teens practiced abstinence, there would be no STDs or teenage pregnancy, because we know teens can’t be expected to behave responsibly. The Genie is out of the bottle; it must be handled with respect from a position of knowledge. The proverbial Genie can be used for good or ill; your choice.)

johnnycardell

I don’t really give a shit anymore because if somebody isn’t elected that’s going to STOP the downward spiral into TRASHY communism, I don’t know about anybody else but I intend to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights and use it for what it was INTENDED for! I will NOT let this happen to America and sit idly by. I wouldn’t be able to look my grandkids in the FACE! I’d rather say ciao, if ya know what I mean!

MR LEE

as in “yippy “

Lu.V

Tool

Rogue1

It’s fun to watch Trump stir things up and get people crazy. But it loses its charm after 15 minutes. While he can get you thinking, he’s really just an egomaniac sideshow.

KrazyHorse

He craves attention

MR LEE

what do mean? the Donald has been conservative for some weeks now, hahahahaha. heck of a do… dude

Michae

half this artical is just wrong. This is like a poor opinion page with false information…shame on you.

Michae

im looking forward to hearing him debate hillary! that should be the best television besides seeing him debate all these other loser candidates that could never beat hillary anyway.

Lynn

Brian Anderson…..think your just a little jealous about the hair lol

Fmuser

I generally oppose eating meat, but I support eating steaks, pork chops, and chicken wings.

RLee

Got a set a balls on him…only one so that is refreshing. Couple of good ideas. I’ll give him that. He’d get eaten alive by the un-fireable, unaccountable bureaucrats that run the show in DC.

darrell_b8

We shall see…………’it’s a long way to November 2016′!

kws11

Trump is amusing, and very likely completely unelectable for many reasons, but the writer’s portrayal of his gun stand seems more than a little extreme. We certainly need a better definition of “assault weapon” before any attempt to limit or ban the things, but the notion that the second amendment provides unlimited access to any manner of “arm” is clearly in no one’s best interest. Where do you draw that line? Bazooka? Law’s Rocket? Tank? Armed drone? The public is clearly protected at some point of “not just anyone can get one of THOSE”. We just need to replace the hand-wringing, over-zealous extremists (on BOTH sides of the table) with rational problem-solvers to determine what “THOSE” are.

theDfactor

I do not believe the U.S. Constitution limits the kinds, sizes, calibers,
magazine capacity, or scariness of the “arms” the Second Amendment
refers to.

Remember, the framers (designers) of the Constitution had only recently won a
bloody war against their government, the King of the British Empire (the British
(American) Colonies).

These constitutional designers drew up a document that LIMITED THE GOVERNMENT, NOT
THE CITIZENS and were very adamant about the citizen populace of this new
United States being so armed and able to overthrow any oppressive government
that might become entrenched. They already knew from history that all
governments eventually become corrupt… And oh, don’t we have an excellent example of
just how corrupt they can be…?

Therefore, they believed armed citizens, who would be called upon to form militias
in time of need, should be well armed to protect themselves from whatever
threat might occur, whether a corrupt oppressive government, or other nations.

To follow that thinking, the constitution’s designers believed United States citizens
should be adequately armed and be able to defend THEIR country (not the government’s
country) from a corrupt form of government if and when necessary.

To that end, citizens must be armed with “arms” comparable to, or equal to,
what a rogue government might have. Therefore the “right” to such unqualified (as
to size, shape, type, or scariness) arms “shall not be infringed.”

End of subject.

Obviously, they didn’t count on there being so many cowardly citizens dependent
on a corrupt government…!

kws11

The Constitution was written in times when the crazies and the nitwits were either locked up or didn’t live long. Weapons were also limited to things far less deadly than what we have today. I find it rather disturbing that anyone should be arguing that all forms of military weaponry should be available for general sale to anyone able to afford it. If yesterday’s young murderer had access to grenade launchers, we might not have had any video of him, and he may still be at large after blowing up God knows how many churches.

And what is an “arm”? Going with your “no holds barred” position, I should think government bans could be ignored… a garage full of fertilizer bombs is OK, as long as you’re only holding them in case you need to blow up “corrupt” government installations. Chemical weapons you make yourself? How ’bout Ebola aerosols?

And with no “infringing”, anyone sneaking into America could go and pick these things up and start their party! I really don’t think that’s what anyone would intend.

Diana Kerr

The Constitution CLEARLY states that a citizen’s right to keep and bare arms must not be infringed upon. Why? Because the writers of the Constitution foresaw a time when the government might be taken over by tyrannical people and the citizens might have to step up!

kws11

So anyone in America should be able to buy, build or own whatever is available, or that they can dream up, to kill others, as long as they maintain it’s to defend America as the founding fathers intended? Sarin? Anthrax? Fertilizer bombs? “Not be infringed” taken as an absolute, with no definition of “arms”, can go a terribly long way.

theDfactor

Every once in a while a see some light at the end of the “tunnel.”
Perhaps your kind are beginning to catch on kws11… Perhaps you will eventually learn why morals and virtue are important to a free society…
Because even if I had a nuclear device or some lethal compound,
and I am indeed moral and virtuous, you need not worry that I would use any harmful means against someone other than a common enemy to our freedom…
Without morals and virtue, restrictive laws are needed in an attempt to regulate moral and virtuous behavior of a citizenry.
Unfortunately governments do not stop at enacting only laws to ensure the citizenry remain moral and virtuous. Governments become tyrannical in nature because the immoral and less virtuous citizens elect government officials that are immoral and less virtuous who will enact laws to take from the proceeds of moral and virtuous citizens and divide those proceeds among themselves and the immoral and less virtuous people who elected them… You know, kinda like what’s happening right now…!
In order to do that the tyrannical government must enact additional control on both the moral and unmoral and the virtuous and not so virtuous in order to retain power over both the moral and unmoral.
Remember, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…!
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John was a very bright man… He understood that in order to maintain the checks and balances between the government and the governed, the governed must be prepared at any time to oust and remove from control/power any government that was not, or did not permit Americans to enjoy freedom and pursue happiness.
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to
institute a new government.”
Do citizens need drones and nuclear weapons to maintain and control OUR government, rather than the other way around…?
How much longer, how much more liberty, how much more control, how many freedoms, and the pursuit of happiness will you be willing to part with kws11?
Hopefully not until nuclear weapons are needed to institute a new government…!

kws11

Condescending… putting me down… writing a long passage full of very noble thoughts and ideas… and never answering my question. Are you a politician?

theDfactor

It’s unfortunate you took my comments to be directly aimed at
you… But, I can see how that might be taken.
My intent was not to put anyone down but only admonish the fact we are in perilous times, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution had the foresight to see into the future…
The noble thought or idea you may not grasp is the framers of the Constitution did not mince words…
If they had intended a future government to enact laws about arms they would have been more specific about what limits the Federal Government could place on future laws regarding arms,
but instead they wanted the future citizenry to have the legal ability to fight with whatever might be required to win any future battle with a foreign adversary or even a tyrannical government. So the language used leaves no doubt… So “shall not be infringed” was used and I believe that is not so difficult to understand…?
Remember the Bill of Rights enumerates what the U.S. Government cannot do, not what it can do… It limits the Federal
Government as far as regulations about arms. Period…!
Seems pretty darn simple to me…
Needing nuclear weapons, explosives, or deadly compounds ought not be needed to make the necessary changes, to our own government, at least I hope not, but in any case I do not believe my right to have or make any device I desire to defend myself, my family, or my country shall be “infringed” based on the clear written word on the U.S. Constitution…!
Quite frankly, I’d be pretty much afraid for my own safety with all of the weapons, devices, and deadly compounds you mentioned.

theDfactor

You mean like how it is today…?

KrazyHorse

Agreed

Sagelike

On his interview last night, he said the exact opposite on most of those subjects.
1. Pro-life, except rape, incest, harmful to mother.
2. Pro-2a, carries himself. Said the more law abiding citizens that carry the better.
3. Was totally joking about Whoopi Goldberg. (It wasn’t even Oprah Winfrey, Mr Anderson. )

Check your shit a little closer Anderson.

Bob Mack

Any politician wanting to be President
should immediately be disqualified from holding the office. This is
what’s known as ‘preventive medicine.’ In fact, the country would be
better served if we used a second-hand lottery machine to pick our
candidates. After all, most of us would rather vote for a reliable ping-pong ball than one or another of the bozos on this bus. https://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/is-that-all-there-is/

ReallyJustKidding

Brian, you bald-headed grandpa, in your dreams you’d still have hair to do a comb-over. Read your own article, bald one, Trump clearly says he opposes gun control, duh?

Peter Brown

It’s troubling when journalists use the leftists adopted “assault rifles/weapons” to characterize 100% legal and blessed SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles. Do these people seek titillation over using the old “assault rifle/weapon” terminology?

truefacts2

If you don’t like Trump, okay – but at least come up with something that closely resembles the truth when you try to disparage him. Omission and stretching the truth is the same as lying. Posting something from years ago doesn’t cut it as truth either.

Peter Brown

It’s troubling when journalists use the leftists adopted “assault rifles/weapons” to characterize 100% legal and blessed SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles. Do these people seek titillation over using the old “assault rifle/weapon” terminology? Is the misuse of the term ignorance or thrill seeking? It’s inaccurate and cheap journalism. Do better!

Gunner Birkemeier

Wow, some people will believe anything they read on these sites. Trump was joking about oprah, just watch the interview. And the interviews since then. Everything else in this so-called “news article” is a joke also. The writer is the clown, not Trump. I actually agree with a lot of what Trump had to say, and I think he’d be better for America than most of who’s running right now. At least he sticks to his guns and tells it like it is.

Steve Brandon

And writing an article based wholly on information more than 10 years old isn’t anything like a liberal would do.

Mike Lashewitz

He is not as bad as the rest of them. Now is Sara Palin would be his running mate . . .

kws11

I’ve been debating a few of you one-on-one about the position that anything you want to own to protect “us” from “them” is fully protected by the Constitution. By the way, I own a few guns, and I plan to own more. Still… my general question to the bigger view…

If Timothy McVeigh had been pulled over for speeding by the Highway Patrol, and they stumbled upon a truck bed full of fertilizer bombs, you would have them waive him along with a “thank you for looking out for our future freedom, sir”?